Now this may suggest a certain condescension both toward theory and toward literary text, which is not at all intended.
选择这篇文章也许意味着,要对理论和文本进行一定的浓缩,这一点不是我想要的。
What's the alternative? The alternative,it seems,for the soul theorist, Shelly Kagan is to say,neither of them is Shelly Kagan.
还有什么选择,灵魂理论者还有的选择,就是说他们都不是。
And then I said--then I thought back on the Freud lecture and so I asked him, ?" "If you could marry anybody you want, who would it be?"
之后我又想到弗洛依德的理论,然后我就问他,“如果你谁都能娶,你会选择娶谁“
It's much more a question of reminding you ; that if you can do it with this, you can do it with anything; but also of reminding you that, after all, reading--reading just anything--is a complex and potentially almost unlimited activity.
选择它主要是为了告诉你们,如果你能用理论来分析这篇,那么分析任何一篇都没问题;,还想提醒大家,阅读任何文章都是个复杂的过程,其中有无限种可能。
But since I don't believe in souls, I want to choose between the body view and the personality view.
但因为我不相信灵魂,我想从身体理论和人格理论中选择。
I think we're going to perhaps be drawn to different answers, depending on whether we accept the body view or the personality view.
我想我们也许该根据自己是相信肉体理论,还是人格理论来选择答案。
But there's nothing in the body view to give us a reason to make that choice.
但肉体理论没有一个标准让我们做出选择。
And it might occur to some of you that this seems to be an analogy with the Darwinian theory of natural selection where there's a random assortment of random mutations.
也许你们之中会有人觉得,这和达尔文的自然选择理论,看上去很相似,自然选择就是随机突变的随机分配。
As far as I can see,the best option for the body theorist at this point is to add--no surprises here--a no branching rule.
据我所知,肉体理论者最好的选择就是,毫无意外地,是加上一条无分支规则。
If you don't like the no branching rule, it's not clear what your alternatives are.
如果你不接受无分支理论,你的选择就不明确。
Okay. So that's the basic distinction and, as I say, as far as I can see it's irreconcilable so it leaves us with a choice that really does have to be made, and it's a choice which looms over a course in literary theory and coming to understand the tradition of literary theory.
这就是二者基本的不同之处,我以前说过,只要二者不能兼容,我们就不得不从中选择一个,这个选择将会一直出现在文学理论课,和理解文学理论传统的过程中。
应用推荐